BTC inscription "War": The struggle between dogmatism and neo-hippies

Written by: Ox’s Secret Finance

There’s no doubt that Luke is pissed off, and I think it’s a bit too much when I see a ton of friends going to Luke’s Twitter to greet his family.

I’ll give you some of my opinions, this is a long article, it may take you 10 minutes, I try to use my shallow cognition and unpretentious words, through this incident to take you to understand the real BTC, and help you make judgments.

I. What exactly is BTC Bitcoin Core

Does the developer of the BTC have the final say?

No, BTC is not a shitcoin, it’s completely decentralized. BTC core developer The term Bitcoin Core DEV has some ambiguity in the Chinese, not the developer of the BTC core, but the developer of the client BTC the core. You can simply understand that they are not the authors who wrote the Yijin Sutra, but they sweep the dust and dust the book of the Yijin Sutra and maintain it.

BTC Core What is Bitcoin Core?

The core of BTC is a software client, in layman’s terms, the BTC network is connected by many computer nodes, and many big brothers are often humble: I’m not a big brother, I’m just a node. A client is installed on each computer node, and the most used client software is called: BTC core. It’s like you have to drink water every day, water doesn’t belong to anyone, but there happens to be a mineral water brand called “Water Core”, without this mineral water, you can also drink water, change the brand or dig your own well to collect dew water, and the living can still suffocate urine?

Does the BTC client only have BTC cores?

No, you can use different browsers just like you surf the web. In fact, there have been multiple BTC clients, such as: Bitcore Node, Btcd, Bitprim.

Why do most people use BTC core as a client?**

Because it was first written by Satoshi Nakamoto, that is to say that the earliest Bitcoin Core DEV was Satoshi Nakamoto.

Do BTC core developers have a lot of influence?**

Otherwise, Bitcoin Core is just an implementation of the Bitcoin protocol, and the implementation of a protocol is certainly not limited to one application, and Bitcoin Core is a completely open-source software. The repository is located here

It’s clear who, when, and which line of code was modified.

We say that BTC is truly decentralized, and the meaning of decentralization is divided into many levels, and the open source of code and the transparency of game rules are also one of them.

As with any open source project, BTC core can be forked.

Who is currently maintaining BTC core?

"Everyone is free to propose code changes and test, review, and comment on open pull requests. Anyone who contributes code, reviews, tests, translations, or documentation to BTC core project is considered a contributor. The release notes for each version of the Bitcoin Core software include an acknowledgments section to recognize all those who contributed during the previous release cycle. A list of code contributors can be found on Github. 」

The development team behind Bitcoin Core is a loose organization with ever-changing personnel, which will not be controlled by any one individual, and even in the process of BTC development, some of the core “volunteer” developers of the BTC have left because they think the work is tedious, and some have left because they lack money to do it.

No individual can manipulate the development of BTC. If the project is maliciously manipulated and the development direction is deviated, then software users and miners can choose to install other software or build their own client (open source), so I often say: you are the oldest. Even if Satoshi Nakamoto comes, he has to say: You are the oldest. Satoshi Nakamoto’s fake Twitter has been resurrected this year, and it has also been confirmed by many parties to be a liar.

Are BTC core developers rich?

It was mentioned above that some people left because they didn’t have money, they didn’t spend a lot of time, a bit like Orthodox Judaism in Judaism in Judaism, Vinaya in Buddhism, studying the teachings and contributing to the ecology, rigid, restrained, hateful, pitiful and cute, for many years, the core operation of the BTC mainly relied on donations from everyone.

Bitcoin maximalists Chinese can be translated as BTC minimalism or BTC extremism, BTC Maxi’s core point is that there should be only one BTC cryptocurrency in the world, and all other cryptocurrencies are scams and shit. Luke seems to be a very typical Bitcoin Maxi.

II. The Struggle of Dogmatism and the New Hippies

What do BTC minimalists think?

In fact, there is no clear statement that can unify all the views of minimalists, the term has been around for a long time, and the real popularity originated from Vitalik’s critique of BTC minimalism in 2014, and of course a few months later, in 2015, the launch of ETH Workshop is another story.

I briefly summarize the minimalist point of view, in fact, the Chinese-speaking community is very familiar: **Ten Thousand Chains Return to the Ancestors. It is characterized by three points: leaderlessness, fair distribution of supply, monetary ethics, and protection of individual sovereignty. **

Is there BTC consensus within the community?**

We have to admit the elegance of BTC, and I personally agree with BTC minimalist that most cryptocurrencies except BTC are actually rigged scythes from birth.

But BTC internal views are never consistent, and it is difficult to judge whether a BTC person’s views are logical, emotional, scientific, or dogmatic.

For example, laser eyes, cryptocurrency moralization, BTC elites, populism, etc.

There are a few BTC users who choose to follow the orthodoxy based on the white paper. But, like any religious organization that develops on the basis of texts, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways, with obvious flaws. (For example, the Sunnis and Shiites of Islam have their own views on a Qur’an.) ）

There are also BTC people who intrude into the lives of others, punish them from a position of moral superiority, and even issue death threats to each other.

There are also some BTC people who quit because they are tired of it, and just silently hold or maintain BTC.

But the debate within the community never stops, and it is in this kind of quarrel that the mainstream BTC culture goes from the degradation of the expression of ideas to the reproduction of old stories. **

OLD ENEMIES HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY NEW ONES THAT ARE MORE IN LINE WITH THE TREND OF THE TIMES (refer to the brc20 community’s assault on the minimalist LUCK), and BTC have maintained the tradition of “BTC player against the world”, but it has also led many newbies to over-defend their beliefs.

In fact, most people’s brains have been short-circuited, and people don’t have time to digest the huge flow of information MEME, narratives, new words, and the boring white papers and tokenomics of the numerous cryptographic protocols and scythe projects.

The internal ordinal controversy that arises today is actually a struggle between dogmatism and neo-hippies, of course, this struggle is also an inflection point, but no matter how you walk in the face of fair BTC, it will be benign, just like the expansion war many years ago. AT LEAST WE WON’T ROLL BACK (A LOT OF POST-ETH PEOPLE DON’T EVEN KNOW THAT ETH FANG ROLLED BACK ON THE DAO ISSUE BACK THEN).

Now that we all know that ordinal numbers can expand miner fees and have a siphon effect on other chains, why are BTC extremists like Luke still so vehemently opposed?

**Superficial speculation is that he was not in the car, which is very likely, but not necessarily tenable. **

At the BTC forum in the OG gathering place, the debate on ordinal number theory has begun as early as January 31 this year, from BTC no need for spam to revisiting the sidechain white paper of ten years ago, from the human value engraved on the BTC to the fat and clogged up of your chain, from the FEE is too high to complete the micropayment to the BTC as the final settlement of the FEE is high.

In the final analysis, it is this inscribed transmission that changes the basic nature of BTC peer-to-peer transactions, and is no longer “halal” (no pejorative).

Holders of this view argue that this tampering with the basic doctrine produced by ordinal numbers is multifaceted, that ordinal numbers change the purity and simplicity of the code (simple means secure, as you rarely hear about BTC phishing sites, of course there are now), that ordinal numbers make on-chain transaction costs higher, (if I were to buy a $5 cup of coffee with BTC and pay $15 for gas, it would break the basic properties of BTC transactions. )

In the latest debate, there has also been a revival of this old idea: "BTC transactions are final, and they should not be compared to regular credit card or PayPal payments, as these are not final. Because if you’re sending money from the U.S. to Tanzania, the final settlement between your bank and the other party’s bank and the dozen or so parties involved can take days or even weeks, and it’s not cheap either. 」

This point of view actually turns a corner and says: we can do large settlements with BTC, small amounts already have USTD, I transfer 10 million US dollars will not care about FEE, and even think that they are expensive and a little slow is reasonable, although it beats the legacy system in this regard, but now, more and more people are optimistic about the increase in fees, some institutions and even banks are using BTC to settle transactions, and now it is not time to discuss the data storage issues that have no discussion value, and it is none of our business whether the future generations can store data or not.

From a point of view, there is nothing wrong with the lovers of luck and ordinals, we are just fighting internally. Luck says that ordinals are garbage, bugs, but minimalists think that ETH, SOL and the like are garbage. **

You see, how fair BTC is.

3. Will this time lead to a fork in BTC?

The fork should be divided into a hard fork or a soft fork, the soft fork is compatible with the new block of the old block, and the hard fork is relative to the two chains.

It’s almost 2024, and forks are no longer new.

In June 2016, ETH Fang forked into ETH Fang (ETH) and ETH Classic (ETC) due to the rollback of The DAO incident.

In August 2017, in order to solve the problems of BTC transaction congestion and high fees, bitcoincore proposed a “Segregated Witness + Lightning Network” scaling plan, but the other faction believes that it should be scaled directly on-chain, supporting large blocks (increasing the block size to 8M) in the block 478558, BTC become BTC and BTC cash BCH two chains.

There have always been supporters of forks, because each fork is good for investors, because they can get a considerable amount of forked coins in addition to the original digital assets unchanged.

Forks have naysayers, and frequent forks can lead to faith breakdown. **

I think that’s why Luck proposes a client solution that limits the size, instead of directly forking the table, and the people who can BTC the core client maintenance and development are often pure and simple, and if they want to make money for themselves, he just proposes a fork solution.

What will be the outcome of this war?

The battle of ideas and beliefs is more tragic than the battle of interests, there are many positions, and the water is very muddy (you can only fish in troubled waters)

Although I, as a BTC-neutral minimalist, don’t want this to end up destroying the purity of the BTC, I have to admit that this time is like a scale expansion war.

Strictly speaking, BTC’s beliefs have never branched off, BTC there is no god and no word, although there has been a quarrel and debate, but this is exactly the value of BTC as a decentralized crypto-anarchism in this absurd world.

Source: SevenUp DAO